DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 42-61 are currently pending and are addressed below. Claims 1-41 have been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the term “safety feature” of a vehicle. The term is not only broad but can also be subjective in nature. A vehicle’s windshield can be understood as a safety feature, as its’ intention is to prevent wind from hitting a driver’s face, reducing eye irritation, and preventing bug/driver collisions. If such interpretations are said to be overly broad, then the claim language should be rejected as 112(b), indefinite language due to using subjective language.
Claims 42, 46, 48, 51, 55, and 58 additionally use the language of a safety feature without further narrowing the language and are objected to as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes -- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations:
detect, via the sensor of a host vehicle, a target vehicle,
analyze, the first region using an image processing module,
determine, an identity of the target vehicle,
analyze, the second region using the image processing module,
determine, a safety feature that is enabled in the target vehicle,
which constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites detect, via the sensor of a host vehicle, a target vehicle. This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “via the sensor”. For example, a person can see a vehicle and detect it is a vehicle of interest. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites analyze, the first region using an image processing module. This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation, “using an image processing module”. For example, a person can see an area/image of interest and analyze it as it is of interest. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites determine, an identity of the target vehicle. This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can determine an identity of a vehicle by looking at it (seeing the shape of or emblems on the vehicle). This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites analyze, the second region using the image processing module. This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation, “using the image processing module”. For example, a person can look at a second area/image of interest and analyze it as it is of interest as well. This step is directed to a mental process.
The claim recites determine, a safety feature that is enabled in the target vehicle. This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can see a vehicle’s brake lights are on, if their turn signal is on, or if a blind spot monitor alert lights up. This step is directed to a mental process.
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a processing circuit comprising one or more memory devices couple to one or more processors…”. That is, other than reciting “a processing circuit comprising one or more memory devices couple to one or more processors…” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Thus the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claim 42 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim recites use of a processor comprising memory. This computer is understood as generic computing components as there is no improvement of the computing. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The Office submits that the foregoing limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of: “capture, via the sensor, a first region comprising a first characteristic of the target vehicle”, “capture, via the sensor, a second region comprising a second characteristic of the target vehicle;” and “wherein the system is configured for real-time identification of the safety feature in the target vehicle for adaptive behavior of the host vehicle”. The receiving steps from sensors and/or from external sources is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “system configured for real-time identification…” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and
is merely automates the evaluating step.
The computing system merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processing circuit, i.e. a computer. The computing system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
These additional elements amount to insignificant application of the identified abstraction per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims 42 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Per the evaluation in step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of determining particular properties is understood as collecting/organizing data which is considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the computing system is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 51 and 58 recite similar limitations and are found ineligible under the 101 guidance as per similar rationale of claim 1 above.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 43-50, 52-57, and 59-61 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 42, 51, and 58 above.
Therefore, the dependent claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 42-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160001777 (“Gerdt”) in view of US 2017/0210359 (”Brandin”).
As per claim 42 Gerdt discloses a system comprising, a sensor and a processor;
wherein the processor storing instructions in a non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the processor to [Fig. 1, Fig. 2]:
detect, via the sensor of a host vehicle, a target vehicle [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle];
capture, via the sensor, a first region comprising a first characteristic of the target vehicle [Fig. 2.17;
analyze, the first region using an image processing module [Fig. 1, Fig. 2.16];
determine, an identity of the target vehicle [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle];
capture, via the sensor, a second region comprising a second characteristic of the target vehicle [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle];
analyze, the second region using the image processing module [¶ 8 … comparing said at least one preceding vehicle with vehicle data in a remote database system, and upon match establishing…, (see additionally Examiner’s Note below)].
Examiner’s Note: Gerdt discloses a first sensor and a second sensor that captures two different characteristics/regions. The claim discloses “a sensor” for capturing different regions/characteristics. Although Gerdt discloses two sensors for the system it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify the invention with the use of two sensors to be able to capture different regions/components of an environment instead of one sensor for accumulating different useful data for the system to improve detection operations. Additionally, further dependent claim 43 states the sensor can be more than one sensor.
Gerdt is silent to determine, a safety feature that is enabled in the target vehicle; and wherein the system is configured for real-time identification of the safety feature in the target vehicle for adaptive behavior of the host vehicle.
Brandin discloses determine, a safety feature that is enabled in the target vehicle [¶ 104 For example, assume the vehicle safety assist system 6 receives sensor information indicating that a braking vehicle A is detected at a relatively long distance from the host vehicle 8. For instance, the vehicle A may be located outside the ACC target selection range 103 but within the sensor coverage area 111 of the host vehicle. … a second vehicle B is also detected braking, … the two observations put together increase the probability that is detected vehicle A, B is actually braking. (system detects other vehicle braking, a type of safety feature, but also detects other vehicles using their safety assist system to enhance detection data credibility)]; and
wherein the system is configured for real-time identification of the safety feature in the target vehicle for adaptive behavior of the host vehicle [Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gerdt with the teachings of Brandin to include sensor detection data of pertinent targets to make determinations for vehicle control parameters by detecting features that can directly affect the self-vehicle by utilizing available detectable sensor data.
As per claim 51 Gerdt discloses a method comprising, detecting, via a sensor of a host vehicle, a target vehicle [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle, Fig. 1, Fig. 2];
capturing, via the sensor, a first region comprising a first characteristic of the target vehicle [Fig. 2.17];
analyzing, the first region using an image processing module [Fig. 1, Fig. 2.16];
determining, an identity of the target vehicle [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle];
capturing, via the sensor, a second region comprising a second characteristic of the target vehicle[Fig. 2.17];
analyzing, the second region using the image processing module [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle (see additionally Examiner’s Note below)].
Examiner’s Note: Gerdt discloses a first sensor and a second sensor that captures two different characteristics/regions. The claim discloses “a sensor” for capturing different regions/characteristics. Although Gerdt discloses two sensors for the system it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify the invention with the use of two sensors to be able to capture different regions/components of an environment instead of one sensor for accumulating different useful data for the system to improve detection operations. Additionally, further dependent claim 43 states the sensor can be more than one sensor.
Gerdt is silent to determine, a safety feature that is enabled in the target vehicle; and
wherein the system is configured for real-time identification of the safety feature in the target vehicle for adaptive behavior of the host vehicle.
Brandin discloses determine, a safety feature that is enabled in the target vehicle [¶ 104 For example, assume the vehicle safety assist system 6 receives sensor information indicating that a braking vehicle A is detected at a relatively long distance from the host vehicle 8. For instance, the vehicle A may be located outside the ACC target selection range 103 but within the sensor coverage area 111 of the host vehicle. … a second vehicle B is also detected braking, … the two observations put together increase the probability that is detected vehicle A, B is actually braking. (system detects other vehicle braking, a type of safety feature, but also detects other vehicles using their safety assist system to enhance detection data credibility)]; and
wherein the system is configured for real-time identification of the safety feature in the target vehicle for adaptive behavior of the host vehicle [Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gerdt with the teachings of Brandin to include sensor detection data of pertinent targets to make determinations for vehicle control parameters by detecting features that can directly affect the self-vehicle by utilizing available detectable sensor data.
As per claim 58 Gerdt discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising [Fig. 1, Fig. 2]:
detecting, via a sensor of a host vehicle, a target vehicle [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle];
capturing, via the sensor, a first region comprising a first characteristic of the target vehicle [Fig. 2.17];
analyzing, the first region using an image processing module [Fig. 1, Fig. 2.16];
determining, an identity of the target vehicle [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle];
capturing, via the sensor, a second region comprising a second characteristic of the target vehicle [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle];
analyzing, the second region using the image processing module [¶8 According to an aspect of the invention, a method is provided comprising the steps of registering at least one preceding vehicle in front of a host vehicle by means of at least a first and a second sensor device, identifying said at least one preceding vehicle (see additionally Examiner’s Note below)].
Examiner’s Note: Gerdt discloses a first sensor and a second sensor that captures two different characteristics/regions. The claim discloses “a sensor” for capturing different regions/characteristics. Although Gerdt discloses two sensors for the system it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify the invention with the use of two sensors to be able to capture different regions/components of an environment instead of one sensor for accumulating different useful data for the system to improve detection operations. Additionally, further dependent claim 43 states the sensor can be more than one sensor.
Gerdt is silent to determine, a safety feature that is enabled in the target vehicle; and
wherein the system is configured for real-time identification of the safety feature in the target vehicle for adaptive behavior of the host vehicle.
Brandin discloses determine, a safety feature that is enabled in the target vehicle [¶ 104 For example, assume the vehicle safety assist system 6 receives sensor information indicating that a braking vehicle A is detected at a relatively long distance from the host vehicle 8. For instance, the vehicle A may be located outside the ACC target selection range 103 but within the sensor coverage area 111 of the host vehicle. … a second vehicle B is also detected braking, … the two observations put together increase the probability that is detected vehicle A, B is actually braking. (system detects other vehicle braking, a type of safety feature, but also detects other vehicles using their safety assist system to enhance detection data credibility)]; and
wherein the system is configured for real-time identification of the safety feature in the target vehicle for adaptive behavior of the host vehicle [Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gerdt with the teachings of Brandin to include sensor detection data of pertinent targets to make determinations for vehicle control parameters by detecting features that can directly affect the self-vehicle by utilizing available detectable sensor data.
As per claims 43, 52, and 59 Gerdt discloses further wherein the sensor comprises one or more of an image sensor, a light detection and ranging, a radio detection and ranging, an ultrasonic sensor, a microphone, and an infrared sensor [¶18 The first sensor device 3 is an image sensor adapted for object detection and identification, preferably by detecting light from the visible or IR spectrum. The image sensor is preferably used in combination with a digital screen 16 arranged in the cockpit of the host vehicle 2, ¶19 The second sensor device 4 is range sensor, such as a RADAR (radio detection and ranging) sensor, or a LIDAR (Light detection and ranging) sensor. The second sensor device 4 is thus used to measure the distance to preceding vehicles 1 within the operating range and operating angle of the second sensor device 4].
As per claims 44, 53, and 60 Gerdt discloses further wherein the first characteristic comprises one or more of a logo, a registration plate, a tail lamp, a shape of the target vehicle, and a size of the target vehicle [¶23 The identity of preceding vehicles 1 can be in form of an identifier of a license plate, a visual identifier of another type of unique marking].
As per claims 45, 54, and 61 Gerdt discloses further wherein the identity comprises one or more of a brand, a model (type), and a make [¶19 The image sensor is preferably also used for identification of a license plate of the preceding vehicle 1, as well as for determining type of preceding vehicle 1, driving lane used by preceding vehicle 1].
As per claims 46 and 55 Gerdt discloses further wherein the second characteristic comprises a visual display of the safety feature in the target vehicle [¶29 HMI provided… Information relating to selection of a target vehicle…, ¶34 VCS 10 receives information from the first and second sensor devices… as well as driving information pertaining to the target vehicle… Said driving information can comprise speed, acceleration, braking actuation (understood as types of safety features)…, ¶36 The method for entering and operating the preceding vehicle autonomous following mode will now be described. The first sensor device 3 continuously sends image information to the digital screen 16 via the VCS 10].
As per claims 47 and 56 Gerdt is silent to however Brandin discloses further wherein the safety feature comprises one or more of lane keeping assist, blind spot information system, cross traffic alert, driver alert control, run-off road mitigation, collision avoidance assist, automatic emergency braking, electronic stability control, 360-degree camera system, and pilot assist [¶104 Now assume a second vehicle B is also detected braking, also at a relatively long distance from the host vehicle 8, again outside the ACC target selection range 103, but within the sensor coverage area 111 of the host vehicle, and due to the long distance the sensor signal information is also considered weak or unreliable. Despite a low reliability in the sensor information for each individual vehicle, the two observations put together increase the probability that a detected vehicle A (host vehicle is detecting vehicle B use of preceding vehicle brake detection, a type of collision avoidance/pilot assist/emergency braking, which is then used to increase confidence of sensor data)] .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gerdt with the teachings of Brandin to include sensor detection data of pertinent targets to make determinations for vehicle control parameters by detecting features that can directly affect the self-vehicle by utilizing a family of sensors data.
As per claim 48 Gerdt is silent to however Brandin discloses further wherein the system further assigns, based on the identity and the safety feature, a confidence level on the target vehicle [¶ 101 way of example, the host vehicle impact consequence level CL is mainly attributed to parameters such as the relative kinematic property of each detected vehicle A (this would include the safety feature as described in ¶ 104), B in the detected set of vehicles 40 and the host vehicle speed, whereas the host vehicle impact consequence reliability measure RM is mainly attributed to parameters such as the reliability of the relative kinematic property of each vehicle A, B in the set of detected vehicles, ¶104 …vehicle impact consequence level reliability measure The rejection is maintained. increases with an increased number of vehicles in the set of detected vehicles 40.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gerdt with the teachings of Brandin to include sensor detection data of pertinent targets to make determinations for vehicle control parameters by detecting features that can directly affect the self-vehicle by utilizing a family of sensors data.
As per claim 49 Gerdt is silent to however Brandin discloses further wherein the system further plans a behavior for the host vehicle in real-time, based on the confidence level on the target vehicle [¶105 …whether or not the system 6 should issue a warning signal and/or an autonomous braking signal.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gerdt with the teachings of Brandin to include sensor detection data of pertinent targets to make determinations for vehicle control parameters by detecting features that can directly affect the self-vehicle by utilizing a family of sensors data.
As per claim 50 Gerdt discloses further wherein the behavior of the host vehicle comprises one or more of maintaining a distance from the target vehicle, determining a maneuver path for the host vehicle, determining a coordinated movement with neighboring vehicles, determining an acceleration profile of the host vehicle, determining a speed profile of the host vehicle, and determining a lane change distance for the host vehicle [¶11 Furthermore, the vehicle control system automatically controls all three main functions of said host vehicle, namely forward speed, steering, and braking for improved driver comfort and increased safety. Depending on the latency in communication between proceeding vehicle and host vehicle, the range gap between said vehicles can be reduced to a few metres, ¶32 Said preferred range gap between the host vehicle 2 and target vehicle is subsequently adopted as reference gap by said vehicle control system 10 during operation of the autonomous following mode].
As per claim 57 Gerdt discloses further the method further plans a behavior for the host vehicle in real-time; and wherein the behavior of the host vehicle comprises one or more of maintaining a distance from the target vehicle, determining a maneuver path for the host vehicle, determining a coordinated movement with neighboring vehicles, determining an acceleration profile of the host vehicle, determining a speed profile of the host vehicle, and determining a lane change distances for the host vehicle [¶11 Furthermore, the vehicle control system automatically controls all three main functions of said host vehicle, namely forward speed, steering, and braking for improved driver comfort and increased safety. Depending on the latency in communication between proceeding vehicle and host vehicle, the range gap between said vehicles can be reduced to a few metres, ¶32 Said preferred range gap between the host vehicle 2 and target vehicle is subsequently adopted as reference gap by said vehicle control system 10 during operation of the autonomous following mode].
Gerdt is silent to being based on a confidence level on the target vehicle.
Brandin discloses further wherein the system further plans a behavior for the host vehicle based on the confidence level on the target vehicle [¶105 …whether or not the system 6 should issue a warning signal and/or an autonomous braking signal.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Gerdt with the teachings of Brandin to include sensor detection data of pertinent targets to make determinations for vehicle control parameters by detecting features that can directly affect the self-vehicle by utilizing a family of sensors data.
Additional Art to Consider
Application Pub. No. US 2023/0166761 titled, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ESTIMATION OF AN OPERATIONAL DESIGN DOMAIN BOUNDARY, also discloses an autonomous safety vehicle system that uses the sense data in the environment including data taken from other vehicles automated driving systems (ADS) to make vehicle control decisions. This is similar to the Applicant’s invention in that Applicant’s reliance on using other automated vehicle control systems to make control decisions for the self-vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights